Here is where it gets weird. After the review was published yesterday, a user by the name of "bisforbest" posted a comment. He defended the filmmakers for bring back the old grindhouse feel but questioned why I brought up the budget of this film (it was shot on a shoestring).

I love replying back to anybody responding to any of my reviews. I commented back just explaining in more detail what worked well and what didn't. I also said the budget would have helped in better talent, FX effects, etc. Well nothing weird about that so far.

But thanks to Evil Adam who is an editor at UGO.com, did some Encyclopedia Brown-ing (via some Google detective work) discovered that this user *gasp* may or may not be the director of this film, a one Mr. Duane Graves. You can check out the rest of the comments here.

Hmmmm. Well this is getting way too fuckin odd.

Would this director actually cloak himself and pretend to be a "fan of his own movie"? Really? This is some classic cloak and dagger shit which I think is truly unneccesary.

Well you might be asking for some proof? Well Evil Adam discovered that a particular e-mail address is being used by this poster and this e-mail addy can be found all over the web for posts in response to the works of Meeks and Graves (the co-directors of the film).

Coincidence? Hmmm. You decide.

Let me just say that I didn't hate the film (though I gave it a C grade). It's really a great homage to the old flicks of old grindhouse horror docu-style Bigfoot like movies. But due to the acting (locals were used), subpar gore/splatter effects and too many scenes of moonshine drinking, it turned out a little cheesy.

My review echoed the tone of many others from Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central for sure.

If the director is masquerading as a "fan of the Wild Man of the Navidad", that's some sly internet hype scheme he's working. But seriously, no need to do that. The movie has gotten good to great press from the horrorsphere. Just comment on the reviews and thank them for the coverage and press.

It's so weird because this movie has gotten pretty good reviews across the board. Why would this dude feel the need to pull shit like this? He's gonna totally ruin any and all credibility he has, if he hasn't already.

Bigging up your own movie is one thing, denying who you are, even when faced with diehard evidence is just ridiculous. This is like that damn Obama birther bullshit, with people denyting that he was born in the USA, even when they show them a birth certificate.

You have a better chance of getting respect if you just face the music and be open about it. If he can't handle any negative criticsm at all, he should not be in any business that requires you to put yourself or your work out there.

Bigging up your post is one thing, but claiming to be someone else, when you're the director, even after being presented with undeniable proof, is ridiculous. This is like the whole Obama birther thing, where people are denying he was born in the USA even when shown a damn birth certificate.

Just fessing up to this would land him more respect. If he can't handle any sort of crticism, in a business that requires you to put your work or yourself out there, then he should be part of that business.

I saw this film because it claims to hearken back to the early Seventies cult gore fests. They accomplished that. The film looks exactly like it was shot in 1973. They mainly accomplished this with poor quality film, bad lighting, bad sound and poor scripting. But it looks exactly like an early Seventies slasher film.

Bacically, there's this Sasquatch-type creature living in the river bottom near this Texas town. The dumb Mexican loses his job and begins opening the "bottoms" up to hunting. The creature gets shot by this moonshine guzzling redneck. It survives and goes on a rampage.

First, the creature looks really bad. Basically, they hung this guy with animal skins and gave him two deer antlers to use as weapons. He guts people with them and heaves their victles out of their bodies onto the dirt. But he looks like some guy hung with deer hides.

There's lots of unnecessary perversity. Like, there's this wheelchair bound woman who cannot speak. The Mexican helper-person likes to strangle her until she's unconscious and molest her. I can'gt see where this savagery fits into the story. It sure is disturbing to watch though.

I shut the film off about 2/3 of the way through. I shut it off right when the townspeople were getting ready to "clean out" the bottoms. They had all kinds of guns, dogs and moonshine. I couldn't watch any more.

I LOVE Seventies cult horror films but avoid this piece of sheeeeeit. It looks like they shot this film for about ten grand. Then it gets released onto video? These guys are laughing all the way to the bank. Don't get suckered in.

Too late. I already saw it. The movie is ehhh. The fact that one of the directors of the film has to "plant" comments on reviews goes to show you they want everybody to trick people into thinking how you thought it was...a 70s gore cult fest.

i was one of the acters in the movie and i have to say it was a film that was well produced. on the budget that was set for its production. the people on the location and in the film where all from the location. in which the movie was made and it was all handled very well.and i like to thank .justin meeks and duane graves for giving my family a chance to make apart of history. that my family and grandchildren can enjoy later in life. gary houser &family